- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Location
- New Jersey
Surrender at Appomattox in April 1865
Last edited:
As much as I would like to agree, I can't for a very important reason. Taking Washington D.C. might be a big propaganda victory for the ANV but taking capitals alone does not win a war. British General Howe thought that taking Philadelphia in 1777 would end the "rebellion" but it did nothing of the sort. Napoleon took Moscow, but that didn't really do anything either.Ammunition was run across the Potomac River in large quantities to supply Lee's Army in the aftermath of the battle.
Had he won? Washington, DC, would have been his for the taking, wide open. Game over.
Hypotheticals are fun but reality is best.
As much as I would like to agree, I can't for a very important reason. Taking Washington D.C. might be a big propaganda victory for the ANV but taking capitals alone does not win a war. British General Howe thought that taking Philadelphia in 1777 would end the "rebellion" but it did nothing of the sort. Napoleon took Moscow, but that didn't really do anything either.
Even if the Confederates took Washington and Baltimore, Lincoln would have simply moved the capital to NYC or Boston, somewhere deep out of reach and continued the war....at least until the North got sick of losing and kicked him out of office in 1864. All the same you look at at least another year and a half of war.
The British did burn down the White House in the War of 1812 and that didn't put a stop to everything, but again the US was fighting for at least its perceived independence from Britain in that war.
It would have been a serious jolt to the Union cause, but ultimately it would not have changed the outcome of the war. After dealing the AOTP a defeat on northern soil, Lee in all probability would have called it a day and collected his winnings, commencing an orderly withdrawal back to northern Virginia. The psychological blow to the Union would have been very serious, and Lincoln might have thought to bring Grant back east after his Vicksburg victory, to lead the AOTP.
Don't see Grant coming east. I do see maybe Couch replacing Meade. Reynolds dead, Hancock wounded. Don't really see another in the AotP being named. Maybe shifting Rosecrans east? Don't know if Meade is replaced.
Hmmmm...I had to give this some thought, but I agree. Grant can't come--you don't break up a winning partnership like Grant and Sherman.
I was actually thinking a bit different in my statement. With Lee in PA, and the AotP diminished, what could Grant have done that Meade couldn't?
You're right, unless Lincoln was tired of giving second chances (see McClellan).
Did Meade do anything that removal could have been justified?
Like lose the biggest battle of the war? (That's the OP)
What do you think would have been the most likely hypothetical outcome if the Confederacy had decisively won at Gettysburg?
Hmmmm...I had to give this some thought, but I agree. Grant can't come--you don't break up a winning partnership like Grant and Sherman.
Don't see Grant coming east.
Maybe not, but what other good options would be available to Lincoln after a defeated AOTP at Gettysburg. As has been noted above, the available talent in the AOTP was greatly diminished. And after all, Lincoln finally brought Grant east in early 1864 after his run of western victories. So speeding up that timetable hypothetically, was all that would be required.